United States v. Loflin , 288 F. App'x 91 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5089
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN WILLIAM LOFLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-00005-FPS-1)
Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: August 15, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney,
Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John William Loflin was convicted by a jury of three
counts of traveling interstate with intent to engage in sexual
relations with a juvenile (Counts 3, 5, and 7), in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 2423(b) (West Supp. 2008), and three counts of
interstate travel to engage in criminal sexual activity with a
juvenile (Counts 4, 6, and 8), in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2423(a) (West Supp. 2008). He was sentenced to 144 months of
imprisonment. We affirmed his sentence on appeal, but the Supreme
Court vacated and remanded in light of United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Loflin, 91 F. App’x 873 (4th
Cir. 2004), vacated, 543 U.S. 1100 (2005). On remand, the district
court again sentenced Loflin to 144 months of imprisonment. Loflin
timely appeals, alleging that the district court’s reimposition of
his 144-month sentence violated his Sixth Amendment rights and was
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
After Booker, appellate courts review sentences imposed
by district courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
discretion standard, Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98
(2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir.
2007), and a district court must engage in a multi-step process at
sentencing. First, it must calculate the appropriate advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range. Then, it must consider the resulting
- 2 -
range in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and determine an appropriate
sentence. United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir.
2006). We find that the district court properly followed the
necessary steps in resentencing Loflin. Id. Moreover, we find no
procedural or substantive errors in the district court’s sentence.
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. Finally, we find
no error in the district court’s decision to follow the grouping
calculation as set forth in the presentence report. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3D1.2(b), comment. (n.4) (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -